The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying it is easier to pull back forces than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.
"This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better," Schoomaker told reporters. "It's just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot."
Sounds like an Army General exuding a little confidense.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 4):Hand-wringing? Like we should all be running around carefree because things are going so well and there are no problems?

So we should be getting all angry and bent out of shape over this? Regardless of what your opinions are over the war, we have to win this, and we have to finish it. Even Falcon knows that, because i've seen him say it. But living in rage over something that's out your control is pointless.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):So we should be getting all angry and bent out of shape over this?

You should demand that the individuals holding elected office in your name should rise to the inherent demand for accountability which comes with every delegated responsibility.

As things stand, those clowns have ruined your country's reputation, caused massive damage on all levels and yet they act as if they themselves had absolutely nothing to do with it all, and none of the consequences could ever touch them as the ones in charge.

The buck has been gutted and thrown to the dogs, I'm afraid, it stops nowhere at all with this administration, apparently!

Hmmmm.... it's 2006, correct? We'll be there until 2010, you say? Average deployment of 12 months, with six months in between? Hmmm.... that means I have at least two more deployments.

But hey... at least that means two more deployments of tax free income!! WOO-HOO!!!

----------------------------

But in all seriousness... I could have told you this news 8mnths ago. We're digging in for the long haul. We're building long term structures, we're laying the foundation for a complex base infrastructure and... in many ways... anything I would typically find on a base in the US, I can find here in Iraq.

This is honestly no surprise to me. (However, I know my wife is gonna flip out. )

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):You should demand that the individuals holding elected office in your name should rise to the inherent demand for accountability which comes with every delegated responsibility.

And Klaus, you are so right. But if we're going to hang Bush out to dry, calling it "his war", then we all need a reality check. Because the Democrats are just as culpable. They voted for it too. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and host of others in the US House and Senate, are also to held to account. Bill Clinton called Saddam a threat to US national Security in 1999 and 2000. So if we're going lay blame, let's include all the parties involved. But accountability will be told when election time comes around. We will see what happens. But until then, just enjoy life instead of going stark-raving mad.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 10):But if we're going to hang Bush out to dry, calling it "his war", then we all need a reality check. Because the Democrats are just as culpable. They voted for it too.

Yeah, the fool and the one who's following him... True to an extent, but still the assignment of responsibility can't overlook the differences in origin and access to supposedly high-quality intelligence information.

The democrats fucked themselves to the hilt, no doubt about that. Still, they followed like cattle to the slaughter, they didn't invent the whole affair and push it on their population and everybody else...

Just read my posts again - I demand accountability - in any decent democracy that is a simple matter of course, a basic essential of democracy itself.

That you've stopped demanding responsibility and accountability from your very own elected officials may be for your own entertainment, but it very obviously hasn't resulted in anything positive, to put it mildly...

I recall June 1st, 2003, and the "Mission Accomplished" bull crap. You remember that, or, like the WMD's, are you gonna have selective amensia on that?

Every American should be angry. We went from what, the administration had thought, would be a fairly quick war, to a conflict that may drag out 7 YEARS. That's longer than our involvement in World War II, for Chrissake!

And, in that whole time, the only people this president has asked to sacrifice ANYTHING, is the soldiers, and their families-sacrifice lives, income, happiness-you name it. We're in a long conflict, and this dolt is giving TAX BREAKS to the wealthies Americans; he's not asking the American people to help out-he wants us to act like it's the Roaring 20's again, and have a good time, while only the soldiers and their families bear the brunt.

And you tell me not to be angry? You know where you can put that one, good buddy.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):Just read my posts again - I demand accountability - in any decent democracy that is a simple matter of course, a basic essential of democracy itself.

That you've stopped demanding responsibility and accountability from your very own elected officials may be for your own entertainment, but it very obviously hasn't resulted in anything positive, to put it mildly...

In the last year or so, i've began to doubt whether we should've gone to war, I was a staunch supporter. I still haven't come to a conclusion becuase I don't really know what is actually going on over there. But today, that's irrelevant at this juncture, because we need to win this. And when it is all over, yes, we should be holding those involved to accountability when it is clear that wrongdoing has happened. That is still subject to debate. But let's sit here and kid ourselves. There are much more at fault here than just Bush and the Republicans. There are others out there who are at fault also.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):I recall June 1st, 2003, and the "Mission Accomplished" bull crap. You remember that, or, like the WMD's, are you gonna have selective amensia on that?

Well Falcon, in all honesty, the mission WAS successfully accomplished.

The problem is, people have a difficult time separating the War WITH Iraq from the War IN Iraq. Did President Bush believe the war was mostly over, of course he did. And I'll walk carefully when I say this: but it was a rather large "misjudgement" on his part.

But to deride the Mission Accomplish Speech, is wrong. What the American military accomplished was incredible. They achieved a stunning victory and it was right to praise them for a job well done.

The Iraq War was a success.... the jury is still out on the War in Iraq.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 17):Well Falcon, in all honesty, the mission WAS successfully accomplished.

I'm sorry, my friend, but I beg to differ. Had the mission truely been accomplished, and not bungled by the politicians in DC-i.e, evicerating the Iraqi police and military to help maintain control; not sending enough troops to do the job; totally underestimating or even dismissing any opposition, the mission would, in all likelihood, be over now.

But you're still stuck there, because those who were in charge of planning failed you, and the American people.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19):But you're still stuck there, because those who were in charge of planning failed you, and the American people.

But that's the problem... you're not differentiating between the invasion and the post offensive rebuilding effort.

That speech followed the quickest modern invasion and over throw of a government since WWII and France. And it certainly incurred the least amount of causalities than ever before.

If you've ever read about what those soldiers did, you'd know it was a huge military victory. People think there was no resistance from Kuwait to Baghdad, which is totally wrong. The Allied invasion WAS a success.

And President Bush's speech followed on the heals of that success. Of course, who are we kidding, he gave that speech thinking it was the end and we'd be home for Christmas. But still... it still doesn't mean we should deny those men and women the "pat on the back" for what they did.

They did a top-notch job, and a simple speech was the least we could do for them.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20):That speech followed the quickest modern invasion and over throw of a government since WWII and France. And it certainly incurred the least amount of causalities than ever before.

Maybe on your own side - we know that the iraqi casualties have simply not been counted. Very convenient, but most certainly not a valid reason to simply assume there were none (see the parallel thread).

And no disrespect to your fellow soldiers, but the iraqi army was the remnants of a near-starved, badly motivated and embargo-weakened army which had been soundly beaten right before the embargo started and never recovered from that - had the US forces actually managed to not win easily, it would have been a really, really bad sign!

It was never in doubt that the iraqi army would lose (and they themselves knew it just as well) - it was just widely predicted that the occupation would be what would have required a significantly larger deployment (refer to general Shinseki here).

Winning the Invasion was always known to be the easier part of the whole affair. Known to anyone but the Bush administration, that is...!

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 12):Well in all fairness - just like America in Vietnam - the Soviet Union got it's ass kicked in Afghanistan.

It's a little different here in Iraq. The Americans aren't getting the brunt of the insurgent led violence... Iraqi civilians are.

I agree, there is also the thing about us helping the Viatnamese and you guys helping the Afghans...so I guess we are even
But I think that in both situations we saw that staying there would be futile and would acomplish nothing but some more dead troops. I guess that you can answer this question better than I can: can you accomplish something in the next couple of years that will justify another 2000+ dead troops? It looks to me like it is not only the insurgents that are fighting but the entire population with each other.

I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov

Looks like Evan Bayh or Mitt Romney will have their hands full (No, Hillary, you can't win; you too, maverick John).

My money's on Bayh. Handsome like Mitt, but with none of the baggage to bring to a Bush-weary electorate.

The first thing any new President should do is make Bush Ambassador-for-Life to Iraq so he can first hand witness his handiwork. Condi can go make a mess of the NFL, and Rummy can join SNL where he belongs.

Basically, we're f*cked. Iraq's f*cked. The new President of the USA is f*cked.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20):But that's the problem... you're not differentiating between the invasion and the post offensive rebuilding effort.

I'm not because there's an obvious continuity between the two. Without the first, you don't have the second, and, with a continuing insurgency bordering on civil war, the latter can't successfully be done.

So, in a sense, we ARE still in the war that was originally fought, just a different phase of it, and one the politico's obviously didn't count on.

Keep safe, man. Thinking of you and all those over there.

25 Jaysit
: These are the opening comments of Bush's speech" Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies h

26 11Bravo
: You're absolutely right, it's all part of the same Iraq War. The initial operation was a spectacular success. One of the most impressive military cam

27 ANCFlyer
: Hate to burst your Anti-Bush bubble there Falcon, but what Gen Schoomaker said was planning for the troops to stay - and that he has 15 Combat Brigad

28 Bushpilot
: For anyone who has even been paying mild attention to the situation there this shouldnt be a surprise at all. As ANC has pointed out, I think it will

29 UH60FtRucker
: Don't forget we went into Desert Storm with 775,000 coalition soldier (30+ nations), with 600,000 being US forces. We had 200 days (6.5 months) to bu

30 UH60FtRucker
: Right... and don't you think that saying, "You did a great job guys, and you made us proud." is a GOOD thing? President Bush's main motives might hav

31 11Bravo
: Absolutely. No question. The president and every other American should have gone out of their way to congratulate the troops on their fine accomplish

32 Jetjack74
: As UH60 said, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was to announce that major combat operations in Iraq had ended which was the truth. The regime, along

33 11Bravo
: The insurgency is a multi-headed monster with numerous groups fighting for their own particular agenda. Some days they fight each other, and some day

34 DavestanKSAN
: I agree with what you're saying about the "Mission Accomplished" banner. It was a great job by our servicemen and women. The main problem why I think

35 Klaus
: No. They fight because certain influential leaders (warlords) use religious pretenses to further their own respective power positions. No. What would

36 Halls120
: And let's not forget the fact that the SecDef at least wasn't even planning for a post offensive rebuilding effort. Anybody who brought that up in th

37 Klaus
: And yet americans in general - on both sides of the main issue - somehow forget to consider that there actually might have been any, which is especia

38 Halls120
: I disagree. Anyone who reads the Washington Post and the other major newspapers are frequently reminded of the loss not only to US personnel, but to

39 ANCFlyer
: They key here is exactly what you said Halls . . . . . . "from Rumsfeld up to the President" . . . Because PLENTY of Flag Grade Officers sure as hell

40 Gilligan
: OMG, then 9 successive administrations must have lied through their teeth to us because I distinctly remember U.S. troops being in Germany, ready to

41 Falcon84
: Well, you then have at least some inkling as to what I've been feeling now since '03. I've felt, since before it was fought, that it wasn't right. An

42 Jetjack74
: So we just give up? No, it's not about making them like one another, it's about making them respect the rule of law. Their police force needs to beco

43 Klaus
: It is a topic which is avoided like the plague whenever it is about confrontations with US troops. There are exceptions, but those are exceedingly ra

44 Jetjack74
: Because the press corps celebrates the casualties of US servicemen. That's why I don't read the papers, I wipe my ass with them.

45 Jaysit
: We can't quit now!!!!!!!!!!!! We haven't killed all their leaders. And we haven't converted them all to Christianity. And then there's that issue of O

46 ANCFlyer
: I will grant you I rarely see any news on it when it involves US troop confrontations, probably a mere mention of how many insurgents were killed . .

47 UH60FtRucker
: Well damn, Jaysit... 45 posts and this thread was going so well... Hell! We even had Jetjack engaging in a honest, civil debate. Have you been tak